In contrast to most laboratory studies on attitude change in which the audience is unaware of the persuasive intent of the speaker, most real world (including clinical) settings involve foreknowledge of persuasive intent. This difference may account for the increased resistance to persuasion found in field as opposed to laboratory settings. Two experiments are proposed to test the hypothesis that a forewarning of persuasive intent inhibits persuasion by eliciting message counterarguments during the presentation of the appeal. If this hypothesis is correct, forewarnings should inhibit persuasion only for communications that are counterarguable. Previously proposed explanations for the resistance to persuasion conveyed by a forewarning of persuasive intent have not assumed that resistance was tied to the manner in which the communication was subsequently processed. These non-information processing explanations (e.g., dissonance, reactance) would expect inhibition of persuasion regardless of the nature of the communication. In Experiment 1, half of the subjects will hear a message that is easy to counterargue (because it is simple and contains refutable arguments). The reminder will hear a message that is difficult to counterargue (because it is complex and contains compelling arguments). In Experiment 2, this design is conceptually replicated employing a different message topic and a different manipulation of message counterarguability (half of the subjects will be distracted from fully processing the communication and half will not). The counterargument hypothesis would hold that a forewarning of persuasive intent should inhibit persuasion only for subjects hearing the easy to counterargue (or no distraction) versions of the message. If the non-message-processing explanations are correct, the forewarning should inhibit persuasion regardless of the counterarguability of the communications.